Alien Skin Exposure X3 review

This review is based on use of Exposure X3 and a beta version of Exposure X3 Complete Workflow Update for Mac.

Introduction

We’ve reached the point with image editing software that most basic features are covered. Correcting for exposure, saturation, and other settings are the expected baseline, which means applications need something more to differentiate themselves.

Add to the mix Alien Skin Software’s Exposure X3. It’s competitive on price—$149 on its own, or $199 for a bundle that includes a couple of the company’s utilities, with no subscription—but it also includes several unique features that demonstrate the company is willing to tailor the software experience to how its customers use the product.

Differentiation in organizing

Like Adobe’s Lightroom family of products, Exposure X3 is both an image editor and an organizer for managing your photo library. You can preview thumbnails, rate and flag photos, assign keywords, and fill in basic IPTC metadata such as Title, Caption, Copyright, and contact information.

People who capture many images at a time and need fast turnaround will appreciate Exposure X3’s ability to import from multiple connected memory cards at once. You can rename files at import, specify custom destinations (and create presets for folder structures), and apply keywords and metadata during the ingest process. What it doesn’t do, surprisingly, is let you preview thumbnails of what’s coming in to cull shots before they’re copied to disk. It also doesn’t let you specify how to treat Raw + JPEG image pairs; you get both shots as separate images.

Import photos from multiple sources in the same batch.

Reviewing photos is aided by Exposure X3’s Quad and Six layout views, especially when you have several photos from the same capture burst where the subject is similar in each one. Four or six adjacent images in your library are displayed in a grid so you can compare differences between them, such as the expression on a person’s face. (There are also options to compare two or three images at a time.) If one stands out, you can pin it to the screen and compare it to others. The views are synchronized, so zooming in on one zooms them all at the same location in the image.

Compare four similar images at a time in the Quad view.

An important distinction about Exposure X3’s asset management features is that they’re directory-based, not catalog based. Applications such as Lightroom and Apple’s Photos keep track of where your photos are located on disk—sometimes all within the same library file or folder, set up by the software—and store metadata and edits about the images in a central catalog.

The advantage to this approach is that, as long as you continue to use that application to manage everything, all that data is more easily accessed by the software. You don’t need to worry about managing files, because the application does it for you. On the other hand, it means the metadata and edits don’t live with the image files. If you move an original Raw file on disk to a new location, for example, any edits you made would not go along with it. And in the case of Lightroom, moving the file in the Finder or Windows Explorer confuses Lightroom because it’s lost track of the image.

Exposure X3 doesn’t use standard XMP files, as many applications do

Exposure X3 takes a different tack. It reads images from the folders in which they’re stored, and writes edits to a separate sidecar file that lives in the same directory as the image file. When you view a photo in Exposure X3, the software also reads the information in the sidecar file and displays the edits noted there.

However, Exposure X3 doesn’t use standard XMP files, as many applications do. Within every directory of images, it creates a folder hierarchy, “Alien Skin > Exposure X3,” that contains metadata files ending in “.exposurex3” created for every image you edit. Those files use the same structure as XMP files, but can also include editing instructions that only Exposure X3 understands.

Some directory viewing software is just a visual way to traverse the folders on your disk, but Exposure X3 does use some centralized know-how to help you organize photos. The Collections feature lets you create virtual albums to group related photos that may exist in separate directories, such as shots from a single client captured over several photo shoots. Adding photos to a collection doesn’t move the files on disk.

Differentiation in editing

Before Alien Skin released Exposure as a stand-alone application, it was known for its presets that simulated the looks of film stocks and other effects. Those are all there in Exposure X3, and the results are quite good.

Exposure X3’s many presets simulate the looks of old photo processes, favorite film stocks, and more.

Want to preview how a preset will look before you apply it? Mousing over the preset thumbnails reveals the effect on your image, but you can also “audition” up to four presets at a time by selecting an image and dragging the presets you want to open slots.

Compare presets to the same image before applying your pick.

In addition to the basic editing adjustments (tone, color, and so forth), Exposure X3 also includes controls for controlling grain and creating vignettes that introduce variation such as distortion and lump size for more organic results. An IR panel introduces the soft hazy signature look of infrared photos with sliders to control color contrast and the degree of halation (light spread). A Bokeh panel includes a multitude of controls for adding selective focus. Exposure X3.5 brings the Color tools into the present with the addition of granular Hue, Saturation, and Luminance controls, as well as white balance controls listed in Kelvin units and with camera Raw presets.

One feature I stumbled upon is the software’s batch editing feature, which resulted in me accidentally making the same adjustments to several shots at once. Instead of making edits to one photo and then copying them to other images, you simply select all the images you want to change in the grid view or the filmstrip at the bottom of the screen. As you make edits to one, the adjustments are applied to all of the others.

When you make any adjustment, as with Lightroom, the effect is applied to the entire image. Unlike Lightroom, Exposure X3 supports multiple layers, enabling you to isolate adjustments on their own layers. In fact, local adjustments such as brush strokes or radial or linear gradients automatically appear as new layers. Each layer has an automatic mask that hides the adjustments until you expose them with the brush or gradient tools.

If your images are stored in a shared location, such as a Dropbox folder, someone else running Exposure X3 can view the photos

The Portrait Touch Up preset demonstrates this: when you apply it, Exposure X3 creates three layers designed to whiten teeth, smooth skin, and enhance a subject’s iris. Paint over the affected areas to reveal the effects. You can’t apply blend modes between layers, as some applications allow, but you can choose an opacity level for each layer.

Remember earlier when I mentioned that Exposure X3 stores metadata in its own sidecar files? All of the editing information is also stored in the same place, creating an interesting collaborative possibility. If your images are stored in a shared location, such as a Dropbox folder, someone else running Exposure X3 can view the photos. The adjustment data exists in the text-only sidecar files that are updated on both machines as they’re changed.

You’ll want to make sure you’re not both editing at the same time, which can overwrite edits, but it allows you to work on an image together over the phone or in alternating sessions without having to send file revisions back and forth.

Performance

Working with layers and local adjustments in Exposure X3 is a bit of a mixed bag. When editing Raw .RAF files from my FujiFilm X-T1, there was noticeable lag when using the brush, which meant I became accustomed to painting an area and waiting a beat for the result to appear before moving on. The lag was more pronounced when viewing an image at 1:1 zoom; an onscreen Rendering progress indicator showed up often. Even when reviewing images, I saw pauses as the software processed my Raw files.

This was a surprise, because I came to Exposure X3 with the expectation that it tended to do a better job handling the Raw files from Fuji’s X-Trans sensors. The update from version 3.0.6 to 3.5 did improve performance somewhat, but the lag is still noticeable.

I became accustomed to painting an area and waiting a beat for the result to appear before moving on

I also loaded some Nikon .NEF Raw files from a D90, as well as Sony .ARW Raw files from a Sony a7R III. Performance was just fine on the former, and a little slow on the latter’s significantly larger (86 MB) image files. But the X-T1’s images, which max out at 16.3MP (compared to the larger 24.3MP files from the Fujifilm X-T2, which I didn’t have to test) still performed the slowest.

For context, I tested Exposure X3 on a late-2016 MacBook Pro with Touch Bar, outfitted with 16GB of RAM (the maximum the machine can handle) and the Radeon Pro 460 graphics processor with 4GB memory (the top-line GPU upgrade when the computer was offered). This isn’t the most powerful Mac available, but it isn’t a slouch, either.

With the caveat that I’m not a software engineer, I suspect one possibility for the lackluster editing performance is that Exposure X3 doesn’t seem to be making use of the high-performance GPU. (You can check this by opening Activity Monitor, switching to the Energy tab, and looking at the Requires High Perf GPU column.)

I was also surprised that the Shadows control seems subpar. Yes, it brightens shadow areas, but it does so by flattening the entire image more than you’d expect; it feels like using a blunt instrument instead of a surgical one.

It’s a reminder that even basic features need attention, as well as the differentiating ones.

Pros and Cons

Pros:

Import from multiple sources at the same time

Edits and metadata are stored in local files, not a central database

Quad layout reviewing

High-quality presets

Ability to audition presets

Fixed price, no subscription

Cons:

Frequent rendering lag using Fujifilm Raw files

Shadows control is heavy-handed

No thumbnail preview during import

Raw+JPEG pairs are treated as separate images

Good for:

Photographers looking for non-subscription software that does more than basic editors.

Not good for:

Comments

What this article mentions about LightRoom and XMP files is incorrect. LR can optionally save non-destructive edit instructions in an external XMP file in the same directory as the image being edited - I have used it for years, and it allows Photoshop/Camera Raw and LightRoom to share raw edits on the same file.

I like how DPR puts a Buy link right there as the first line (subheading) in the article/announcement... Obviously it doesn't seem to be an affiliate link, but still, it's funny to see there right after the title in large letters.

Now let's see them make an iPad app.I really like the way you can modify the 'filters' and run many filters on the same picture if you want. Sometimes you get really nice results. Depends on you.I have the X2 but I cannot figure out if I can use it as a standalone product. Thus far it's been an add-on in LR.

Looks really interesting.Actually i´m looking for an alternative to Lightroom because of their idiotic subscription model.This seems to be a good piece of software.Hope to see some kind of geotagging or map based tagging in the future, then I will give it a try.

Using X3 for a few days and although a bit slow at times on my 9 y/o iMac , I like the interface much more than Capture One or Lightroom. I still use Aperture which I think has the most intuitive interface and exceptionally useable tools. No multistep masking , but simply brushes to do virtually every basic edit. I find it ironic that most amateurs salivate to own DSLR's costing thousands because they can produce such great images then buy complex editing software to salvage an image that should have been shot properly to begin with. I think X3 has most of the right tools for exceptionally quick selective edits with brushes. I shoot wildlife and sell my work at art shows. I've rarely needed a fraction of the features available in Lightroom and the like. A tweak here and there and its done. If you need to spend more time editing than it takes to create an image you are doing something wrong. I see an infatuation with complexity in photography these days which is not necessary.

You bet we need one! I use Lightroom because it was the only one. But the catalog function is backwards, everything important seems hard to use except basic editing. Adobe is imperious and cocky. I hope they are watching

You made me curious, so I did some tests. They ARE xmp files, but not named as such. There are 2 ways to convert them, as long as you use RAW files. You can export them to the same folder using the same file extension, or you can actually copy the .exposurex3 file from the Alien Skin folder to the main folder and rename it. e.g P4010959.ORF.exposurex3 renames to P4010959.xmp, and voila, keywords and metadata are all there. Exporting jpgs bakes in any edits. I suspect the copy method would work here but I haven't tested it.

I've been using X2 and X3 exclusivly and I think its very good!The killer feature for me is that it doesn't use a library.. I put all my files on Onedrive and then I don't have to worry about the library if I edit on my laptop or on my desktop!I use Fuji XT10 and XT20 and I don't find it slow! But I notice a difference when the raw files are compressed compared to uncompressed!

Aperture performed great with large libraries running on processors from several years ago—mostly on hard drives instead of SSDs. Again, this is just a further indictment against Adobe's terrible software architecture and bloat (which is totally separate from their hideous and non-native UI design.)

The library slow down lightroom due the reason of search algorithm (typically a binary search). I have a patent related to search that could do size independent search timings, adobe can approach my previous employer (they hold it) about it. Can speed things up very much.

Aperture uses a library and it's fast. No new patented technology required. What Adobe needs is new leadership that focuses less on the bottom line and more on the user experience. But of course that will never happen since corporations are beholden to Wall Street over customers.

It won't replace Photoshop but I've always thought Lightroom was just too over-engineered and cumbersome. I like Exposure because it focuses (pun alert!) on a good set of filters/effects and the kind of post processing that goes hand in hand with Photoshop. I use the two together quite often.

Image editing is only one part of the equation. What we lack today are good alternatives to Lightroom in the realm of digital asset management software with rich, elegant, and fast interfaces. My outdated, several year old copy of Aperture is far faster and less of a resource hog than Lightroom. I can't stand Adobe products. Yes, they have great capabilities, but their user interfaces are infuriatingly bad for anyone accustomed to the polish of the Mac ecosystem.

With online price performance improving by orders of magnitude while desktop systems improve by a few percent, pursuing a desktop future is like trying to build a better carburetor for a car. It is not just data analytics that have migrated but video editing and high end gaming as well. Unless Alien Skin has a web plan, their future isn't bright.Take a look at some of the free photo editing applications on ChromeOS if you want to see the future.

Stuff that. Have zero interest in contributing to hosted applications like that in any way sale or form. Nor do I want to be reliant on an internet connection so I can edit my images only to have them at the will of an a**hole company.

What you describe is beneficial for the companies that develop software, but detrimental for he end user. Companies like Apple focus on ge end use, while companies like Google and Adobe only focus on themselves and their bottom line.

A useful intro/overview to this software. Not what I would call a review however. Reviewing software in any depth is a major undertaking, but given the number of competing options now available, and the importance of software in most photographers' workflow, perhaps DPR should consider doing a full in-depth comparison review of the main players? Now would be the perfect time with all the consternation over Adobe's subscription-only announcement.

Rather than doing one humungous review, I would suggest doing it as a series, with each instalment concentrating on one area (eg file management, image processing engine, local adjustments, exporting etc). We all love our gear, but let's be honest, software is just as important as the camera for many people.

It's XMP at heart, and Alien Skin adds stuff in there that only X3 is able to parse. If you do some standard adjustments, then compare the .exposurex3 file with an .xmp file (after export), they'll be identical. So it's not *entirely* proprietary. But it does mean that if you open the image in another application that reads XMP files, it won't pick up all the edits (or won't see any edits at all if it's still just the .exposurex3 file that's associated).

@jeffcarlson XMP as per the ISO standard allows for proprietary information in addition to standard data items. I cannot begin to understand why companies go their own route. I assume that compliant XMP allows for easy exchange of infor such as ratings and labels, important to many? Why deny their customers that feature?

Well, this time I can' refrain. This is a pathetic piece of software that is not worth the HD space it takes.After installation on my Mac I can not open any file which is outside the preselected paths ../Desktop ../Documents ../Pictures, no way to see a network attached disk (where I keep my photos). Bahhh !!!

I ran into this, too. In the Folders panel, click the + button and choose Add a Bookmark. The naming threw me off, because I don't think of folders as bookmarks. But that's how to point to a folder that isn't one of the defaults. You should be able to add your NAS to the list.

I added my drives as "Bookmarks" and all my photos show up as black squares ( a mixture of NEF and RAF files - so it isn't camera specific ). So, I can only conclude this software is a bit buggy unfortunately.

Am I understanding this correctly? I go out and shoot a series of different topics on a single card and when I go to load them on my computer I can't even see thumbnails before hitting an import button? Seems to me that adds an unnecessary step later or get a culling program to use beforehand. This, right off the bat, is discouraging me to give the program a chance of consideration. Anyone care to alter my possible misconception?

I love Exposure X2 and use it a lot. When I read that an update to X3 had been released that included a printing function, I decided to download the trial and take a look. Maybe I'm missing something, but the print functionality seems very limited - to the point of being useless. I could find no way to change the destination printer within the program from my system's default printer, nor did I see any option to utilize custom paper profiles.

Topaz Studio can work directly with RAW files, as can most other editors. And I find it very easy to use; it's fast and intuitively laid out. But you have to buy the "Pro" adjustments to get advanced editing capabilities.Personally, if looking for a dedicated free RAW editor, my first choice would be the camera manufacturers' software. If you work with RAW files from multiple camera brands and want to learn only a single software, then try either LightZone or RawTherapee, both are free and OpenSource.

I'm wondering if using the beta workflow product with x3 is the issue with performance? I don't really understand the integration between the two, plugin, separate utility, patch, ... as it wasn't really defined in the review.

I wrote the review based on X3 v3.0.6, and also tested separately with a beta version of 3.5. When the release version of X3 3.5 came out, I tested again and got the same results. Those were with the full application… I didn't focus on X3 as a Photoshop or Lightroom plug-in.

While it doesn't take long to learn Alien. you need a couple of weeks of constant use to really get a sense of how good this software really is. It's a shame many people will overlook the product based on this thin review. I get little to no lag on my work PC but lag on my Mid 2010 Imac (i3).I would suggest people watch the tutorials Alien has produced to know what the software can do. I barely touch my standalone LR since I've gotten Alien 5 months ago. The software is much more capable than this review lets on. With the RAW files from my OMD1 Mark ii and working with some 6D Mark II, I don't have any lag.

£120 a year is a fractional cost for a professional photographer. If you don't value your business then fine, use old software, but £120 is literally peanuts, I spend more than that on coffee in a month.

@dd1989, For professionals I would tend to agree with you. Many here including myself are not professionals, and probably many, myself included, have rather modest incomes. Thus, £120 per annum constitutes a different persective.

Neither do I use old software, instead I use Picktorial and Affinity which cost me £0 per month. If people want to pay the subscription then that's fine. Adobe products are not for me, not anymore. Maybe a growing trend.

Go for it then. I prefer to make my own judgements. Everything I own is disliked by a large percentage of people. The problem in most cases is many reviewers are not really users. they are, well, reviewers. More problematic is that most users are amateurs and haven't a clue about photography. They are the ones targeted.

Thank you for the review. I think you saved me time trying this software. On the surface I don't see any added benefit over the free Phitoscape X, and at this price point might as well go with Capture one.The competition is really strong now and the free options are really good.

I'm a Fuji shooter and I've been testing Exposure for a while now and how anyone can perceive this to be good for X-trans files is beyond me. When it comes to sharpness and retaining details it's even worse than Lightroom, which is already one of the worst softwares for X-trans files. And just like you've mentioned in the review RAF files also load and render very slowly.On the upside it doesn't suffer from the "watercolor effect" as far as I've seen.

Overall I think it's terrible for X-trans files and I'll definitely not be getting it.

I use Lightroom, but I convert the files with Iridient X-transformer first. Although the best softwares I've used for X-trans files are RawTherapee and ON1, but I find those lacking in several other areas unfortunately.

In my recent tests with x3f files I found they can be opened with the free software chasy draw ies. But the conversion is dull, soft and noisey. So not really worth it.Affinity photo surprised me in ability to open the files, from Sd14, Sd1m and sdq. The edits are very fast and the output is good. There are some noise artifacts, but only at the pixel level. I mention my Sd14 as its the last fully supported Sigma camera.Sigma pro is still the best output, but on my computer takes minutes vs seconds for Affinity.If uou haven't tried Affinity, I would recommend it.

The high level "preview" made me curious.Checked their homepage, and stumbled over their "preset" showcases with the before/after view of some pictures. The worst I have seen in a while. I hate the retouching they did to the portrait, and the BW example is just hilarious. (Let's turn a beautiful redhead into a BW picture, right)The landscape is completely unrealistic.Sorry for the harsh criticism here, but then again thanks for sparing me the time to test your software. We simply don't share the same taste. Sticking to LR and my Fuji presets.

Yes, I thought the "high quality presets" where not to my liking. I am absolutely ready to judge what they present on their webpage. Guess that's their point of putting it there.

This is not about superficially judging people, it's a product, and I did not feel like spending the time to go deeper after what I saw. Really no reason to feel offended, just one opinion out of many.

I bought this software last month. I love it! it allows me to organize my photos the way I want and still have many of the features of the mainstream products. Nothing organizes beter.

WORK AROUND : for the no preview on Import, just setup your card as a short cut! you can preview and select which photos to import, but you import by using the renaming feature! Its not perfect but still better than LR & Aperture.

What, "short cut" is a program option? I've never heard the term. Please elaborate. I'm still hooked on Aperture's method of import and from your comment that" it's still better than Aperture" prompted this reply. Aperture's DAM is one of the major items that has kept me with this relic even though other programs have excelled in the editing department.

Hello John, I've always stored my photographs outside of a "DB" type library. I prefer a flat file system with sub folders that allows me to search and access my originals with any application. I originally started on Windows and the D.A.M. software I used was "Cam2pc". This is still the best design I've ever used to this day for importing. Then 11y ago I migrated to Apple and tried to use lightroom but it wouldn't let me do what I wanted. Then I was given Aperture and after some tinkering, it let me do what I wanted by using an old "Apple Bar Time display UI" trick. It was not as good as "Cam2pc" but it was close enough to make me comfortable. Well about 2 years ago when Apple killed my 6K Mac Pro 3,1, I decided it was time to move back to windows as I wasn't buying a Trashcan Mac Pro. "Cam2pc" still works (Barley, its never been updated). but I discovered ExposureX3 and after some initial testing found a work around for the selective import feature :)

The Short Cut I use is the Mass Renaming.To set it up:#1 Put your memory card in the reader. #2 Cancel out of the "Import from Card" popup window#3 Press "CTRL+B" to create a new bookmark in the "Folder Explorer bar on the left. #4 Select "This PC", then select your memory card Drive with a single click to high light it. Then click "Select Folder to add it to the Folders Bar. (Now whenever you place that memory card in the ready it will pop up in the folders menu)#5. Now click on the folder to view like you would normally to view its contents. #6. You can now click on the Pictures you wish to import. (Use the CTRL key to select multiple)#7 After selection, Right click and select "Rename...". # setup your renaming process to match what you want. (I have it prompt for a Project name for the folder & for the files.)

When it does the renaming, it will actually move the files to the new location & rename them, just like the import from card does but you get to preview the photos.

fast and LR look and feel.The haze correction is not as good as DxO Optics pro but this is a good match and replacement for LR5. It renders Nikon B700 NRW files as well.For Sony ARW files, I find Dxo Optics pro still better.

Not sure why you think to put down Affinity as a leader, that they 'compete on price'.

In fact, Affinity competes on much more than price. They've shown big design chops in some very intelligent, advanced abilities compared to Photoshop and its ilk.

Just try using their healing brush in real-world situations, for one example.

But as an approach, and with regard to this company in particular, what you imply is just wrong. This is an immature journalistic move, a false way to try to gain attention, and you should know a lot better.

@barney, I would appreciate that you watch more carefully over snipey nature if you are going to bring in these pushing faces -- thanks. Push is, in your face...

@NarrBL If you re-read that paragraph, you'll see that I wasn't putting down anything; I was using them as examples of being competitive on price—which they are—without any comment about functionality.

Not sure this constitutes a review. Perhaps an overview and initial thoughts. It doesn't delve into IQ technicals in any meaningful way, and for that reason isn't especially helpful to anyone seriously evaluating the product.

I recently tried the demo specifically for the DAM. The major feature that turned me away was the lack of Smart Folders.

Speed wise it renders quicker than LR5 (last time I really used it) without the need to generate previews. I ended up going with ON1 because the speed of culling (super fast) and the ability to create smart albums based on keywords and metadata.

I dumped LR for Exposure X3 and it's a great editing application. Will never go back to any Adobe products. I find it faster than Lightroom. I like the fact that I don't have to switch between the Library and Develop modules. I much prefer the Bookmark concept in Exposure X3 as opposed to the catalog in LR. All in all a very nice app that keeps getting better.

It was a second for me, went with ON1. I would love to see where both On1 and Exposure are in 2-3 years. Right now it felt like both of those apps are trying to take advantage of LR going subscription only.

"On the other hand, it means the metadata and edits don’t live with the image files. " (About Lightroom).

This isn't necessarily true. You can save almost all the metadata out to the files in LR, and you can even have it do it automatically (Edit - Catalog settings - Metadata tab - Automatically write changes into XMP).

In this way, your edits and most metadata are written to either the images files or to sidecar files in the case of proprietary raw files.

If you import those files into a new catalog (or someone else imports them to their catalog), they'll have the edits and metadata for those files already in LR's catalog.

Not being an LR user myself I'm curious to know how it handles images that are deleted or moved directly? I've seen many times with these image editing programs that try to catalog files, that when the actual files go missing (i.e. are deleted) they get very confused. Sometimes you can perform a refreshing operation which takes a long time, and in other cases like Darktable for example, you have to drop to a shell and execute commands or delete the catalog file entirely.

Somehow it just seems natural and logical to keep every "editing aspect" about a file in a sidecar file. It's so simple: There's the file, there's the sidecar. Move or delete both and you won't have any problems. It also appeals to me that sidecar files are in an editable/readable format that I could in principle write software to "post process" the way I wanted to. I can't do that with software that has a proprietary catalog file format.

Lee Jay, Launching Lightroom just to delete or move a file vs just using Explorer, that's easier how?What if you decide to rename an image file while using another program? You have to leave that program, open LR, rename the file, then go back to the other program to continue working. I have nothing but contempt for LR's system of cataloging and importing.

You can do as Lee Jay says and do your file management inside Lightroom. Alternatively, you can do it outside of Lightroom, in which case your files are still previewed, but have a question mark icon in the corner to show that the program can't find them. Click the question mark and you are prompted to locate the file on disk. All the other images in the folder are re-linked automatically once you've found it. It's fairly easy, but this is one slight down side to the catalogue method. Lee Jay is also correct to point out that you can choose to save all edits as sidecar files automatically (or indeed as metadata within the file if you are working with DNG). This means that you can open your images directly into Camera Raw/Photoshop at any time and all your edits are there - you don't have to export as tiff/jpeg. However, you can't turn cataloguing off completely in Lightroom.

It is very much easier to manage in LR, especially if you have many files in a folder like me, due to the catalog. There is no waiting for the folder to render and no wait for it to sort, it is all immediate. You can see all the folders inside LR and moves are super quick and easy. If you don't need or like the catalog, that is fine, but it is essential for managing 20+MB raw photos when you have tens of thousands of them. Especially if you don't want to manage photos by putting them in different folders which is just a slow and silly way to do things (as opposed to keywording).

"Lee Jay, Launching Lightroom just to delete or move a file vs just using Explorer, that's easier how?"

Because it's easier to locate files in LR in the first place, it's easier to select them based on almost any criteria you like, and it's easy to just go to the folder panel with them selected and right-click and select the move files to here option or click and drag. In other words, you can have one folder, collection or filter set open and still move them to another folder or location without another instance.

"What if you decide to rename an image file while using another program?"

Example? What other programs do you use to manage your image files? I use exactly one, and one is plenty.

"I have nothing but contempt for LR's system of cataloging and importing."

It has MASSIVE advantages - like being able to bring up every image of one person you've ever taken in 2 seconds, for just one example.

Thanks. Some good posts here fairly explaining the advantages of LR and cataloging.Does that not involving tagging every photo? Or can you tag folders as well, for example, all Australia folders or Work folders?

Yes but I tag everything as I first view it in library view. I can highlight 100 photos and mark them all with "Family", then 5 with "Blue Jay" and 15 with "White-throated Sparrow" and if I feel like it, I can add specific family members (but I rarely do, except for my kids). It's fairly quick, and I can't think of a better way to organize things. The folders are irrelevant to me. The best part is, tags are put in the file itself, so if you ever stop using LR, you can still make use of them.I did actually go back and retrofit about 8000 photos once - it took a while but highlighting large groups at once (no need to go folder by folder - just view all untagged or something similar) but I got through it and feel great about my organization now.

I also use LR's face-detection and tag every face. I did over 200,000 such images when the feature came out. Took about 38 hours. I keep up with that on new imports, where it only takes seconds to minutes.

I use folder names as my primary organizational means, and you can search for those as well. You can even select one or more folders or collections and search within those.

I had a family member die recently and I was asked if I had any decent pictures of the deceased. Took literally 5 seconds to find every face of that person and show just the face, not the whole image. And that's in a catalog with over 300,000 images. How long would that take using a folder-by-folder image-by-image search?

With X3 keeping everything flat in a standard file system with everything open, means if you get a corrupted X3 edit of a RAW file, you loose the one file (not the RAW). I like being abelt o simply grab everything I've shot with the assiciated information through Explorer or Finder and back it up with a simple drag and drop. What is even nicer, is that If I use the X3 and open the backup location, POP!, Everything is there, key words, ratings, notes and more. And since I rename my Raw files with <Date><TimeTaken>-<Projectname>-<counter>, I can easily search through explorer for any pictures I might want, like Family pics or a work event i captured but don't remember the dates of. I can do this in and out of the application, which means I've got more tools to utilize then being stuck in some silly Catalog file.

I dislike catalogs because I've seen them get corrupted. if you have a 1.5TB Catalog file and it goes belly up. your screwed for days! that also means file recovery is harder, takes more time, and your FORCED to use the one application only to search and find photos. That in its self is a deal breaker.

If your going to limit yourself with a catalog file, then your eventually going to have issues. Flat storage can be imported into anything. Is easier to recover. and can be utilized by multiple OS's. (Example, I switch between MAC laptop and windows desktop with an external drive, its pretty sweet and super flexible)

Why screwed for day? Mine backups up every other time I exit. Just use the backed up file. Limitiing yourself to slow file based organization because you are afraid of having to spend a minute switching to a different file possibly someday is silly.

I shoot all raw and have been doing it since Canon Introduced the "G1" back in 2001. My photo library alone is over 1TB in size and I have digital images going back to 2000. I don't know why someone would want to limit them themselves to only being able to to access their photos with only "1" program. I like to use several different programs and know exactly where i need to go without having to run everything through a middle man. And what would everyone do if Lightroom was discontinued next month and support totally dropped from it?? and now with their subscription system, you can get locked out of light room at their whim. I work in production operations. I aim for 100% redundancy, accessibility and functionality no matter where I need to move too when companies decide to do stupid stuff.. and All my stuff runs on RAID 1 because if your hardware based raid 5 device dies and you cant get another of the exact same devices, you can't recover any of it. Been there done that :(

Your catalog is not your photo library. It does not contain your photos.

If they remove LR tomorrow, no problem, I own a perpetual license. If somehow I lose that, I can always export processed versions of my processed images if I want them and either way I still have my originals.

It sounds like you don't understand the cataloging system. It's just a database that stores metadata about your images thus making fast searches across the entire image library possible. It doesn't affect your images at all.

If you set Lightroom to automatically save all edits to the file (or sidecar file) as you go along, then a corrupted catalogue file or sudden problem with Lightroom wouldn't be much of a problem, as most edits including keywording are stored with the file. Personally, I do like to keep things well organized in the folder structure as well as using a catalogue, as I need to access the images from other applications. Another strategy is to create a separate catalogue file for each batch of photos you generate, and save the file within the folder with the photos when you want to work with a set of photos you just open that catalogue. This is pretty similar to Capture One's 'session' management method.

Agreed, I think the problem is people don't understand what a catalog is. I could never use lightroom again and it would have nothing to do with my photos. I would just lose the ease of organization and management. Also, if you end your subscription, you can still use the lightroom management features, you just lose most of the other features.

looks like a solid and capable choice for shooters wishing to own,, not rent essential portions of the computer experience. one owns the computer , and one buys electricity in measured amounts to power it , many feel similarly inclined to own their software tools as well , and for the price offered it be a wise expenditure .... and essentially a finite one , according to the users needs , not the dictates of corporate behemoth .

"many feel similarly inclined to own their software tools as well , and for the price offered it be a wise expenditure .... and essentially a finite one , according to the users needs , not the dictates of corporate behemoth"

LOL - you obviously never read the EULA agreement you HAD to agree with in order to use a software product. If you had, you'd realize you're paying for a "license to use" said program.... even if it's a "perpetual license", the company still owns the program. And the main difference between perpetual and subscription is that you never have to worry about upgrades.

@ADMint, Main difference? How about never having to pay monthly rent until you decide you need an upgrade. I'd say that's the main difference. A perpetual license means NO RENT, perpetually, until you, the user, decide you need an update. It makes that horrible "worry" about upgrades rather easy to bear.

It's the difference between paying when you actually need the thing, versus paying all of the time, over and over, no matter what, whether you use it or not, whether there's an upgrade or not ...

I not going to debate you on whether to subscribe or not anymore than I'm willing to debate over chocolate vs. vanilla. I'm simply "reminding" that the EULA states you are buying a license to use said software.

as i said that is boilerplate legalese that all code if forced to carry

in the real world ,... you either buy, or lease, that is the exact user experience irrespective of the legal verbal garbage that attaches itself to every ownership experience in our modern lives , from watching a damn dvd to owning a home and yes even "buying " software "

I have yet to tap the full capabilities of CS6, even the earlier versions for my requirements. For people like me why would we want to waste income on something we are not utilizing? I'm staying clear of subscription for as long as I can.

DOH no DNG support! Thank you for saving me from checking this out further. It is worth mentioning that Lightroom STILL does not support GIF files. I haven't been able to rely on it 100% as an image manager because of this. You also can't move a video to another folder if the preview is loaded. I had a plugin to show all files in a folder, but it broke a few updates back.

I am an Adobe Bridge user and have tried Lightroom on several occasions but my main concern was that it wants to take control of my fluid file structure, keeping the edits in the actual directories would benefit me greatly.

Perhaps I will give this one a shot.

My preferred method would be using this as an alternative to bridge/acr and continue doing edits in PS.

Flowchart -you sound like an old DOS guy ;)Yes -you need to move the photo files from within LR. This made me crazy a few times, but I'm over it now. For me the C1 interface is too clunky, so I remain with Lightroom.

Well, I guess you are right; I have been using file managers on a daily basis since the Commodore Amiga so it's part of my natural workflow, I'd hate to have to replace these very versatile tools just for one task. (This is the reason I use Adobe Bridge over Lightroom).

@FlowchartThat's what great about capture one session. It creates a DB for every session in the folder. You can then rename, move, do anything to the folder an capture one doesn't care.You also don't import RAWs into a session, you just copy the RAWs into the folder and they instantly show up in your session. You can also put the session on a NAS so multiple people can work on it, or easily copy sessions between devices

In my workflow, I simply create a session for every event like "wedding XYZ march 2018" and then drop my RAWs into the folder. I can then non-destructively cull and edit my images. If the project is finished I just copy the folder onto my archive NAS and if I ever need it again I can simply open the session. No need for large slow catalogues

I must say that I like Exposure X3 but as suggested i tried out Capture One too and must say that the colour rendering is spectacular!. (too bad I have to export in TIF and not .dng to keep it.. but no biggie)

Annoying though that the auto rotation/keystone only seems to work with Capture Ones own cameras... ACR handles this much better.

Latest in-depth reviews

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.